Re: [PATCH v3] x86: let 'reservetop' functioning right

[Liang Li <liang.li@windriver.com>]

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 08:41:24PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 04/08/2010 08:23 PM, Liang Li wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 08:12:18PM -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >   
> >> On 04/08/2010 05:43 PM, Liang Li wrote:
> >>     
> >>> When specify 'reservetop=0xbadc0de' kernel parameter, the kernel will
> >>> stop booting due to a early_ioremap bug that relate to commit 8827247ff.
> >>>
> >>> The root cause of boot failure problem is the value of 'slot_virt[i]'
> >>> was initialized in setup_arch->early_ioremap_init. But later in
> >>> setup_arch, the function 'parse_early_param' will modify 'FIXADDR_TOP'
> >>> when 'reservetop=0xbadc0de' being specified.
> >>>
> >>> The simplest fix might be use __fix_to_virt(idx0) to get updated value
> >>> of 'FIXADDR_TOP' in '__early_ioremap' instead of reference old value
> >>> from slot_virt[slot] directly.
> >>>   
> >>>       
> >> While I guess this patch works OK, I have to say that I'm worried by the
> >> need for it at all; it seems to be papering over a more serious
> >> problem.  reserve_top_address() is supposed to be called very early,
> >> before anything has used or referenced FIXADDR_TOP.  If we're seeing
> >> problems with FIXADDR_TOP changing after it has been used, then it means
> >> that reserve_top_address() is being called too late.  Fixing that would
> >> be the real fix.
> >>     
> > The ideal thing is FIXADDR_TOP should not be touched after
> > early_ioremap_init. The late call to reserve_top_address is from
> > parse_reservetop, aka when reservetop=0xabcd0000 being passed as kernel
> > commandline parameter. In setup_arch, the call sequence is:
> >
> > setup_arch
> >   -> early_ioremap_init
> >   -> parse_early_param
> >     -> parse_reservetop
> > 	  ->reserve_top_address
> >
> > See, how could we solve the confliction better?
> >   
> 
> Well, the first question is "do we need the reservetop= kernel
> parameter"?  Zach added it, I think, so that VMI could be loaded
> dynamically as a module.  Given that VMI is deprecated anyway, I wonder
> if we can just drop support for modular VMI and remove the reservetop=
> kernel parameter.  Or are there other uses for it?

Agree. We can remove the 'reservetop=' kernel parameter then the
problem dispear. :) But we don't have to.....

Regards,
		-Liang Li